The fourth transformation of Singapore’s
industrial relations
Chris Leggett
University of South Australia
ABSTRACT
Three transformations of Singapore’s industrial relations have been discernible since1959, when the Peoples Action
Party (PAP) was elected into office, and 1986. There was an interregnum between 1987 and 1997, when Singapore
experienced a long decade of economic growth and such modifications to its industrial relations system as were
made, were not transformational. The Asian economic crisis of 1997 triggered a fourth transformation ― one that
has implications for the broader debate about the future of work in industrial market economies ― under the official
rubric of ‘Manpower Planning’. The aim of this paper is to apply a strategic choice model to explain this latest
transformation. The paper concludes that a strategic choice approach is an appropriate heuristic for the transformation
of Singapore’s industrial relations system.
Introduction
The strategic choice model of industrial relations was developed by Kochan et al. (1986) to explain the
transformation of American industrial relations that they claimed the systems model (Dunlop, 1958) was
unable to do. Since 1986, their approach to industrial relations has been applied in other parts of the world.
Methodologically, it presupposes significant knowledge organised according to a systems schema. Therefore,
observations of industrial relations in Singapore, with its colonial and post-colonial political history,
presuppose that the facts acquired by observation are knowledge dependent. This is not a problem so long
as one does not require ‘that the confirmation of facts relevant to some body of knowledge should precede
the acquisition of any knowledge’ (Chalmers, 1999, p. 14). Consequently, we use the strategic choice model
here to explain the latest transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations. We conclude that a strategic
choice approach is an appropriate heuristic for the transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations system
and note that the transformation itself has implications for the debate about the future of work that engages
industrial relations academics such as James et al. (1997) in industrialised market economies.
The strategic choice model
Although sometimes represented as a paradigm shift (Chelius and Dworkin, 1990b, pp. 2, 14-16), the
strategic choice model qualifies and builds on systems theory as applied from Parsons (1951) to industrial
relations by Dunlop (1958). Kochan et al. (1986, p. 11) refer to their approach as one that ‘draws from the
rapidly growing theoretical paradigm that integrates the traditional theories of industrial relations systems
with the literature on corporate strategy, structure and decision making’ (author’s emphasis). Their strategic
choice approach embodies a general framework for analysis of industrial relations issues, which includes
participants’ strategic choices, and a three-tier institutional map of industrial relations institutions.
The leader and strategist in transforming Singapore’s industrial relations has been the People’s Action
Party (PAP) Government, which includes cadre trade unionists (Leggett, 1993, Chew and Chew, 2003),
whereas Kochan et al.’s analysis of the transformation of American industrial relations attributes these
roles to management. It may be that to make it relevant elsewhere the modifications to their strategic
choice approach, upon which Koch et al. speculate, could include a relocation of the strategic initiative for
change., to the chaebol in South Korea for example (Kwon, 1997; Kwon and Leggett, 1994; Kwon and
O’Donnel, 1999).
348 AIRAANZ 2005
Transformations of Singapore’s industrial relations to 1986
Four sequential transformations of Singapore’s industrial relations are identified (Table 1).
TABLE 1
Strategic
initiative,
strategic
choice and the
transformations
of Singapore’s
industrial
relations
Colonial
Administration
to 1960
Regulated
Pluralism to
1968
Corporatism to
1979
Corporate
Paternalism to
1997
Manpower
Planning
ongoing
Strategic initiatives taken by political elites
Colonial
government
PAP Government PAP Government
PAP Government
PAP Government
The
unsuccessful
suppression of
politicised to
the promotion
of economistic
trade unionism
regulated
by union
registration
To regulate
industrial
relations and
employment
terms and
conditions by
law.
To restructure the
economy through
wage reform
To respond to
globalisation by
transforming
industrial
relations
into strategic
HRM, called
‘manpower
planning’
To cultivate
politically loyal
trade unionism.
To leave rival
unions to decline
To place legal
constraints
on collective
bargaining,.
To incorporate
trade unions into
the PAP-NTUC
symbiosis.
To involve
employers with
the PAP-NTUC
through NWC
wage fixing.
To promote
technocrats as
union leaders.
To restructure
unions and
redefine trade
unionism.
To facilitate
flexible HRM
Strategic choices made by trade union leader
Fronts and
Federations
Fronts and
Federations
NTUC
NTUC
NTUC
Challenge
to authority
through labour
unrest (Leftists)
To identify with
Barisan Socialis
(SATU) or
with the PAP
(NTUC).
To abandon
confrontational
bargaining for
cooperatives and
social welfare
provision
To strengthen
the NTUC
leadership with
technocrats
To engage
with MOM
and SNEF
to increase
workforce
mobility and
promote lifelong
learning
Confrontational
bargaining
(Moderates)
To restructure
unions along
industry and
enterprise lines
Strategic choices made by employers
Government as
Employer and
Employers
Government as
Employer, NEC
and SEF
Government as
Employer, NEC
and SEF
Government as
Employer, and
SNEF
Government as
Employer and
SNEF
Grudging
compliance with
the promotion
of trade
unionism
To comply
with the legal
regulation
of industrial
relations
and dispute
settlement
To participate in
centralised wagefixing through
the NWC
To recommend
and adopt
some Japanese
employment
relations
practices
To engage
with MOM
and NTUC
to increase
workforce
flexibility and
mobility
They are: from colonial administration to regulated pluralism, 1959-1967; from regulated
pluralism to corporatism, 1968-1978; from corporatism to ‘corporate paternalism’, 1979-1986,
anticipated by Deyo (1981, pp. 95-107); a fourth transformation, referred to in Singapore as
The fourth transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations 349
‘Manpower Planning’, begun in 1998 but not yet completed. Also discernible is an interregnum
of consolidation and minor modification from 1987 to 1997.
From colonial administration to regulated pluralism, 1959-1967
The strategic initiative for this first transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations lay with the
PAP Government that came to office in 1959, led by Lee Kuan Yew. With intent to industrialise
Singapore, it passed the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1960 to regulate collective bargaining and
dispute settlement through conciliation and judicial arbitration. Its ‘moderates’ used their office
and the Internal Security Ordinance 1948 to demoralise their ‘Leftist’ colleagues and promote a
National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). A former ‘Leftist’, C. V. Devan Nair, brought trade
unionists under the NTUC umbrella and then the NTUC into a symbiosis with the PAP to
achieve the regulated stability that had eluded the colonial administration (Media Masters, 2003).
1960 to 1967 saw the end of politicised labour and a decline in adversarial industrial relations,
but the Ministry of Labour’s conciliation caseload remained high (Ministry of Labour, Annual
Report, 1960-1967).
The Trades Disputes Act 1941 and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955 had
already limited the capacity of unions to take industrial action in essential services, made politically
motivated strikes illegal and banned secondary picketing when the President of the Public Daily
Rated Employees Unions Federation (PDREUF) had, in December 1966, called for a strike in
support of a wage demand, a strike that was made unlawful by virtue of the Government referring
the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC). An affiliate, the Public Daily Rated Cleansing
Workers’ Union (PDRCWU) went on unofficial strike in January 1967 and both the PDREUF
and the PDRCWU were deregistered two months later. The Government banned all strikes in
certain essential services and required separate unions for each statutory board. The strike was
a ‘turning point in Singapore’s industrial history’ and prepared the workers for the changes the
Government was planning to make to the labour laws. (Lee, 2000, pp. 106-107).
From regulated pluralism to corporatism
The effects on the scope and content of collective bargaining and on the role of trade unions
of the Employment Act 1968 and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 1968 were in many
ways greater than those of Singapore’s transition to self-government and independence. The
immediate purpose of the legislation was to counter the loss of jobs anticipated as a result of
the withdrawal of British military bases from Singapore. The Industrial Relations (Amendment)
Act 1968 extended the duration of collective agreements and made it an offence for a trade
union to raise for collective bargaining matters of management prerogative. The Employment
Act 1968 set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for the workforce and, for
the bulk of the manual workforce, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 1968 confined
these terms and conditions of service in a collective agreement to those prescribed as minima
under the Employment Act (Leggett et al., 1983, p. 57). As a result the number of disputes and
working days lost fell, but so did trade union membership (Ministry of Labour, Annual Report,
1968-1971). If the NTUC was to play a significant part in the Government’s human resource
strategy for economic development, it had to be revitalised. Revitalisation, it was advised by
the PAP leaders and announced by NTUC senior officers at a seminar Why Labour Must Go
Modern in 1969, would be by establishing consumer cooperatives and providing welfare services
(National Trades Union Congress, 1970).
The direction of the transformation in this period was sustained by the passing of the National
Wages Council Act 1972 and strengthened by the authority of the wage guidelines of the resulting
National Wages Council (NWC) (Oehlers, 1991, p. 287; Tan, 2004, p. 222). It also may have
contributed to the turnaround in 1973 of a declining union membership (Conversation with the
former NWC Chairman, 30 October 2003).
As with the first transformation this one included a significant strike - at Metal Box in 1977
(Deyo, 1981, p.50) - which, as it was the last strike in Singapore carried out without the tacit
consent of the Government, might be seen as another turning point in the history of Singapore’s
industrial relations.
350 AIRAANZ 2005
By 1979, Singapore’s industrial relations had been transformed from a system of a regulated
plurality into a system in which trade unions, by being a partner in government, had their
activities were constrained for the sake of economic development; and, in 1979, the Singapore
Government was ready to restructure the economy and encourage another transformation of
industrial relations (Leggett, 1988).
From corporatism to corporate paternalism
Qualitative change to the NTUC leadership, trade union restructuring and redefinition, and wage
reform were the key changes that made up the third transformation of Singapore’s industrial
relations. A merger of the two major employers’ associations tidied up the national tripartite
structure. The strategic initiative remained with the PAP Government but the transitions were not
always enthusiastically embraced: there was a work-to-rule by aircrew of Singapore’s flag-carrier
airline (Leggett, 1984) and passive resistance to trade union restructuring. Workers were scolded
for inappropriate work attitudes and a recession led to a re-think about the pace of change. As
with the first two transformations, this one ended with a strike, paradoxically one sanctioned by
the Minister for Labour (Asiaweek 10 March 2000).
The induction into the NTUC of young technocrats got off to an unfortunate start when the
Prime Minister effectively dismissed former naval architect, Lim Chee Onn, from the NTUC
Secretary-Generalship (Straits Times, 13 April 1983) and concessions had to be made to ‘grass
roots’ leaders in the NTUC. Lim’s successor, Labour Minister Ong Teng Cheong, made clear
his unitarist credentials by declaring that even resort to conciliation and arbitration was ‘a sad
state of affairs’ (National Trades Union Congress, 1984, p. 1).
By the late 1970s, economic success had brought Singapore a tight labor market and anxiety
about being caught in the low wage trap. To avoid the trap it would take an institutional
approach of greater sophistication than hitherto. Thus, from 1979 to 1981 the unanimous annual
recommendations of the authoritative NWC substantially boosted wage levels in Singapore with
the deliberate intention of shifting capital-to-labour ratios to slow employment growth and raise
productivity. It would seem that the high wage policy had the intended effect on productivity
as there was a reported increase over the 1970s of an annual growth rate of from two-to-three
percent, to four percent in the early 1980s. The possible inflationary effect of the wage increases
was offset by increases in the employers’ and employees’ compulsory contributions to the statemanaged Central Provident Fund (CPF), which had become a more complex instrument of
economic and social policy under the sophisticated corporatism of the 1980s. In hindsight the
policy was premature, and in 1986, when the Singapore economy was in recession, had to be
corrected (National Wages Council, 1986; Mauzy and Milne, 2002, p. 10).
Partly to avoid concentrations of power, in 1979 the NTUC began to restructure omnibus unions
into industry-wide ones but it was a commitment to the emulation of Japanese industrial relations
that caused the restructuring to be taken further by the promotion of house unions ‘better able
to promote the bond and cooperation between the employee and the company’ (The Straits
Times, 27 July 1984). Union restructuring provoked some resistance from some trade unionists
(Leggett, 1988, p. 249), but the redefinition of trade unions by substituting the ‘purposes’ of
the promotion of ‘good’ industrial relations, the improvement of working conditions and the
achievement of productivity for the confrontational ‘objects’ of the original British legislation
completed the transformation of their experiences of trade unionism (Leggett, 1993, p.242).
The changes that constituted the fourth transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations,
although foreshadowed, did not begin until after the 1997 Asian economic crisis and remain in
progress in 2004. Meanwhile, in the long decade that followed the industrial relations issues that
presented themselves, although important, were not in themselves transformational.).
The decade of growth, 1987-1997
In Singapore, 1987-1997 has been represented as between crises and labeled the ‘decade of
growth’ (Ee, 2001, p. 87). Following the 1985-1986 recession an Economic Committee made
recommendations on wages (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 1986). Wage rigidities, which had
partly resulted from past NWC recommendations, were to be removed; wage levels were to reflect
job worth and employee productivity, and companies were to use the variable components in
Chris Leggett
351
pay as incentives (Tan, 2004, p. 223). In spite of the economic recovery the NTUC continued in
1987 to urge wage restraint and wage reform. This was consistent with NWC recommendations
(Ministry of Labour, 1987), to which the NTUC was a party, that, in line with the Economic
Committee’s recommendations that wages should lag productivity growth and that as much
as possible of total wage increases should be in an annual variable component (AVC). The
employers’ contribution to the CPF, which had been cut from 25 to 10 percent of total wages in
1986, was increased over the decade to 20 percent, and the employees’ contribution, which had
remained at 25 percent, was reduced by 5 percentage points over the decade to make a combined
contribution of 40 percent by 1991, an achievement maintained until the decade’s end (Ministry
of Labour, 1987-1997).
Singapore’s fourth industrial relations transformation
The changes that constitute the fourth transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations,
although foreshadowed, did not begin until after the 1997 Asian economic crisis and remain
in progress in 2004. An account of Singapore’s fourth transformation may be seen as relevant
to the ‘major debate in industrial relations research over the past decade…over whether or not
some fundamental transformation is occurring in the industrial relations systems of different
countries in response to the internationalisation of markets, technological innovations, and
increased workforce diversity’ (Locke et al., 1995, p.139). Because of its requirement for workforce
flexibility and because of the new behavioural and attitudinal demands it makes on Singapore’s
employees as a consequence, the fourth transformation, has implications for the broader study
of the future of work.
In 1998, the Government transformed Singapore’s Ministry of Labour into the Ministry of
Manpower (MOM). MOM’s mission was to develop a globally competitive workforce and foster
a highly favourable workplace to achieve sustainable economic growth for the well being of
Singaporeans, reflecting in Singapore the worldwide development of industrialised economies
adjusting to the imperatives of globalisation and technological advance.
The Singapore authorities’ response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis did not of itself constitute
the beginnings of the fourth transformation of industrial relations. The immediate response
was similar to that triggered by the 1985-1986 financial crisis: a raft of cost-cutting measures
to sustain the competitiveness of local invested corporations (Ministry of Trade and Industry,
1986, 1998; Tan, 2004, pp. 296-320). Singapore economists reported the immediate measures as
ones ‘that could be taken to reduce costs in order to save jobs, as well as on skills upgrading to
ensure life-long employability’ (Chew and Chew, 2000, p. 11). On the labor front it was thought
sufficient to reduce the variable components of wages that had been introduced in the third
industrial relations transformation but this proved not to be so and employers’ contributions to
the CPF were cut (Tan, 2004, pp. 301 and 303). A broader and longer term strategy involving
the institutions of industrial relations and thereby a transformation of the industrial relations
system was undertaken under the rubric of ‘Manpower Planning’. ‘Manpower Planning’ has been
adopted as the tripartite label for a national response ― made after consultation with eminent
management and industrial relations academics with global reputations ― to the global forces
that are seen to require a shift in the way work is organised and done and in the way working
life is lived. In particular, in Singapore, it is represented as an investment in people in order to
transit to a knowledge economy (Ministry of Manpower, 1999, p. 7).
The government’s manpower planning strategy
The 1999 Ministry of Manpower’s blueprint, Manpower 21, identified six strategies with
accompanying recommendations on how to pursue them and named the leading partners. The six
strategies are: (1) the integration of manpower planning; (2) the development of lifelong learning
for lifelong employability; (3) the augmentation of the talent pool; (4) the transformation of the
work environment; (5) the development of a vibrant manpower industry; (6) the redefinition
of partnerships. Of its 41 recommendations, 33 require MOM to take the lead, and one each
the Ministries of Trade and Industry, Finance, Education and Environment but involving the
Ministry of Manpower. The lead partners with MOM specifically include the NTUC and the
SNEF for strategies (2), (4) and (6).
352 AIRAANZ 2005
For lifelong learning and employability they are required to ‘Continue to provide support for
workforce development programs targeted at older and less educated workers, and for developing
manpower for strategic industries’. Their responsibilities within the transformation of the work
environment are to ‘Promote best HR practices by developing national recognition awards for
companies with exemplary HR practices and organising HR conferences’. The roles of the
SNEF and NTUC together with that of MOM in redefining partnerships is to organise an
annual Manpower Summit and ‘Introduce a Labour Management Partnership Programme to
support joint labour-management initiatives’ (Ministry of Manpower, 1999, pp. 52-58). Apart
from the involvement of these industrial relations institutions in manpower planning, there is
little in the recommendations that relates to the industrial relations of the past except for MOMs
responsibilities for occupational, health and safety, workmen’s compensation and amendments
to the Employment Act 1968 for greater flexibility.
The NTUC’s strategy for manpower planning
The NTUC’s blueprint, NTUC 21 (National Trades Union Congress, 1997) was produced two
years before MOM’s Manpower 21. It identified five pillars for the labour movement in the 21st
century: ‘Enhance Employability for Life’; ‘Strengthen Competitiveness’; ‘Build Healthy Body,
Healthy Mind’; ‘CareMore’; ‘Develop a Stronger Labour Movement’ (National Trades Union
Congress, 1997). A concern here, however, expressed as an imperative in Manpower 21, was
the shrinking union membership base affecting the NTUC’s strength as a ‘social partner’. Thus
Manpower 21 exhorted the ‘tripartite partners’ to ‘jointly review these issues and study how union
membership and leadership could be strengthened so that unions can continue to be an effective
partner in Singapore’s tripartite framework (Ministry of Manpower, 1999, p. 48).
Membership growth was the fourth of eight NTUC key programs for adapting to the new
work environment (see below) and there has been a continuous growth in absolute trade union
membership since 1997. In the last few years this has begun to outstrip employment growth, with
density in 2003 passing 20 percent. Since 1997 there have been some changes in the structure
of the NTUC ¯ mainly towards industry-wide unions and away from the once preferred house
unions ¯ by amalgamation and merger. Only a few unions chose not to affiliate with the NTUC
and they include those representing airline pilots, some catering workers, motor workshops
employees and print and media employees.
Anticipating a state of ‘constant job churn’, as well as aiming to equip workers with medical
benefits, union memberships and individual training accounts that are portable between employers,
the NTUC has put in place eight key programs (NTUC, 2001, pp. 3-6). They deal with community
development, industrial relations for competitiveness, leadership development, membership
growth, employment and training, productivity push, skills upgrading, and workplace health.
They may be seen as: (1) multi functional — the functions of social development, employment
management, union agency maintenance and development, and human resource development;
(2) operating at different levels — society, work community and workplace; (3) integrating the
functions of maintenance, management and development and the different levels with and within
the labor movement. When configured in this way they constitute a transformation of the labor
movement commensurate with the transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations system.
The employers’ role in manpower planning
While the Chambers of Commerce and the Singapore Manufacturers’ Federation (SMF) have
representation on the NWC, the Singapore National Employers’ Federation (SNEF) is the key
representive of employers in the national Manpower Planning strategic initiative. Complementing
MANPOWER 21 and NTUC 21, SNEF 21 (Singapore National Employers’ Federation,
1997) SNEF listed the following strategies for the new millennium: pursue productivity, stay
competitive, win workers, create more high value-added jobs, cultivate corporate citizenship
(Tan, 2004, p.119).
The issues considered by the SNEF in 2000-2001 were the NWC recommendations, the
representation of executives in rank-and-file unions, portable medical benefits, the monthly
variable component, and retrenchment benefit guidelines. The SNEF’s Secretariat comprises
salaried appointees and in 2001 included two secondments from MOM. The role of the SNEF
The fourth transformation of Singapore’s industrial relations
353
in industrial relations is largely determined by its commitment to Singapore’s tripartism. Thus,
the issues that are the concern to MOM and the NTUC are much the same as those that are the
concern of the SNEF, but with the SNEF’s greater concentration on labor costs, especially the
NWC’s annual wage guidelines, the level of employers’ CPF contributions and the retirement
age, which was again increased (to 62 years) in 1999 (Singapore National Employers’ Federation,
2001). The SNEF’s activities that reflect and complement the NTUC’s and MOM’s manpower
planning strategies include labour and salary surveys and the provision of a range of courses in
management, administration and human relations skills. Its Diploma in Management specialises
in Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management. As well as its representation on the
NWC and the CPF Board, the SNEF is represented on a range of community bodies.
Globalisation, increased competition and the increasing acceptance of the doctrine of economic
rationalism, have created a whole new set of contingencies for management in Singapore, in
particular for those managers that were once safely within the public sector. Increased exposure
to the business environment has required them to hone their management skills, set strategic
directions and be more responsive to markets. Not excluded from the Manpower Planning strategy
imperative is the management of human resources, represented professionally in Singapore by the
Singapore Human Resource Institute (SHRI) and to some extent by the Singapore Institute of
Management (SIM), especially by its extensive management education programmes. Employers and
managers are highly institutionalised in professional and developmental organisations in Singapore
and where not officially represented are regularly consulted by the Government and employers.
The NWC and a competitive base wage system
The NWC had been urging an increase in the proportion of wage increases being paid as a variable
component when, in 2003, the Government-commissioned a report from a ‘Tripartite Task Force’,
on wage restructuring (Ministry of Manpower, 2004). Its recommended a Competitive Base Wage
System and urged a move away from a seniority based wages with a 70 percent basic wage, a 20
percent annual variable component (AVC) and a 10 percent monthly variable component (MVC)
for rank-and-file employees; and 40 percent and 50 percent variable components for middle and
top managements, respectively.
Discussion
Singapore’s industrial relations transformations have been in response to the state of the world
economy, although partly precipitated by immediate local and regional crises. The first was a
result of commitment to industrialisation by a Government released from the constraints of
colonial administration. The second was the result of pre-empting the employment effect of
the withdrawal of the British military base from Singapore. The third was due to a realisation
that if the standard of living of Singaporeans were to continue to rise, MNC investment had
to shift to high technology, high value-added production. These three transformations involved
institutional changes that have determined the infrastructural arrangements for the fourth.
Tripartism was organised in a range of public sector institutions, from statutory boards to
industrial arbitration. While these arrangements remain, the transition from a corporatist to
a corporate emphasis has added another dimension to tripartism. This corporate emphasis is
particularly apparent in Manpower 21 with its different combinations of participants for achieving
each of its forty odd recommendations Of the three parties, the strategic initiative remains with
the Government although the NTUC and SNEF blueprints for the 21st Century predated that of
MOM. Because of the strength and seniority of the PAP-NTUC symbiosis, it can be assumed
the NTUC’s program had the de facto endorsement of the Government.
354 AIRAANZ 2005
Summary
Following the quick recovery from its 1985-1986 economic crisis and during a long decade of
economic growth, the industrial relations system of Singapore that emerged from the third
transformation - from corporatism to corporate paternalism - was consolidated and refined rather
than transformed. A further transformation, this time triggered by the Asian financial crisis of
late 1997 continues to this day (2004) and appears to be, in a concentrated form, what many of
the older industrialised countries have been experiencing for a couple of decades or so, or longer
in the USA according to Kochan et al. (1986), a comparison with which could be justified by the
concertina effect of ‘late, late’ industrialisation (Dore, 1979). Heralded as ‘Manpower Planning’
it aims at achieving workforce flexibility and mobility, as opposed to the discipline and diligence
of the first and second transformations and the company loyalty and stable employment of
the third, to ensure employability as global competition intensifies and technologies advance.
The strategic initiative for transformation lies with the Government, but is reinforced through
the programs led by MOM and shared with the NTUC and, to a lesser extent, the SNEF, and
implemented through the complex of corporatist institutions established and developed in the
earlier transformations of Singapore’s industrial relations.
Conclusions
While the original strategic choice model was predicated on the strategic initiatives of management,
the strategic initiatives of Government in the Singapore case for four distinctive transformations
has largely determines the strategic choices of the other two ‘actors’. With regard to levels of
industrial relations activity, the legitimacy conferred by tripartism has ensured that the required
responses permeate to all levels, from senior management to the shop floor, particularly with wages
policies. Consequently a difficulty encountered with the representation of Singapore’s industrial
relations transformations is that the NTUC-PAP symbiosis overshadows such experiences and
attitudes workers themselves may have had which might have differed from the official line.
References
Asiaweek (Weekly) Asiaweek Publications, Hong Kong
Chalmers, A. F. (1999) What is this Thing Called Science? St. Lucia, University of Queensland Press.
Chelius, J. and Dworkin, J. (1990b) ‘‘An Overview of the Transformation of Industrial Relations’, in J.
Chelius and J. Dworkin (eds.) Reflections on the Transformation of Industrial Relations, Metuchen,
N.J. and London, IMLR Press/Rutgers University, pp. 1-18.
Chew, R. and Chew, S. B. (2003) ‘Employment Relations in Singapore: From Flexible Wage System to
Flexible Employment System? Employment Relations Record, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 53-64.
Deyo, F. (1981) Dependent Development and Industrial Order: An Asian Case Study, New York, Praeger.
Dunlop, J. T. (1958) Industrial Relations Systems, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ee, B. L. (2001) Managing the Crisis, Singapore, National Trades Union Congress.
Erickson, C. L. and Kuruvilla, S. (1998) ‘Industrial Relations System Transformation’, Industrial and
Labor Relations Review
Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Janes, P., Veit, W. F. and Wright, S. (1997) Work of the Future: Global Perspectives, Sydney, Allen and
Unwin.
Kochan, T., Katz, H., and McKersie, R. (1986) The Transformation of American Industrial Relations, New
York, Basic Books.
Kwon, S. H. (1997) Control and Conflict
ict, unpublished PhD Thesis, Sydney, University of New South
Wales.
Kwon, S. H. and Leggett, C. (1994) ‘Industrial Relations and South Korean Chaebol’ in R. Callus and
M. Schumacher (eds.) Current Research in Industrial Relations: Proceedings of the 8th AIRAANZ
Annual Conference, Sydney, University of Sydney, pp. 804-834.
Kwon, S. H. and O’Donnell (1999) ‘Repression and Struggle: The State, the Chaebol and Independent
Trade unions in South Korea’, The Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 41, No. 2, pp. 272-294.
Lee, K. Y. (2000) From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew,
Singapore, Times Editions.
Leggett, C. (1984) ‘‘Airline Pilots and Public Industrial Relations: the Case of Singapore Airlines’, Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Chris Leggett 355
Leggett, C. (1988) ‘Industrial Relations and Enterprise Unionism in Singapore’ Labour and Industry Vol.
1, No. 2 (June), pp. 242-257.
Leggett, C. (1993) ‘Corporatist Trade Unionism in Singapore’, in S. Frenkel (ed.) Organized Labor in the
Asia-Pacific Region, New York, ILR Press, pp. 223-246.
Leggett, C., Wong, E. and Ariff, M. (1983) ‘Technological Change and Industrial Relations in
Singapore’ in R. Blanpain, G. J. Bamber, and R. D. Lansbury (eds.) Bulletin of Comparative
Labour Relations 12 – 1983 Special Issue: Technological Change and Industrial Relations: An International
Symposium Deventer, Kluwer, pp. 55-75.
Locke, R., Kochan, T. and Piore, M. (1995) ‘Reconceptualising Comparative Industrial Relations:
Lessons from International Research’, International Labour Review
Review, Vol. 134, No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Mauzy, D. K. and Milne, R. S. (2002) Singapore Politics Under the People’s’’s Action Party, London, Routledge.
Media Masters (2003) Alias Chin Peng
Peng, Singapore, Media Masters.
Ministry of Labour (Various Years) Annual Report
Report, Singapore, Ministry of Labour.
Ministry of Manpower (1999a) Manpower 21: Vision of a Talent Capital, Report of the Manpower 21 Steering
Committee to the Minister of Manpower 4 August 1999, Singapore, Ministry of Manpower.
Ministry of Manpower (2004) Tripartite Taskforce Report on Wage Restructuring
Restructuring, Singapore, Ministry of
Manpower.
Ministry of Trade and Industry (1986) Report of the Economic Committee: The Singapore Economy – New
Directions, Singapore, Ministry of Trade and Industry.
Ministry of Trade and Industry (1998) Report of the Committee on Singapore’s Competitiveness,
Singapore, Ministry of Trade and Industry.
National Trades Union Congress (1970) Why Labour Must Go Modern: The NTUC Case for a Modernized
Labour Movement, Singapore: NTUC Publication.
National Trades Union Congress (1997) NTUC 21, Singapore, National Trades Union Congress.
National Trades Union Congress (2001) Better Knowledge Better Life: Secretary-General’s’’s Report to the NTUC
Ordinary Delegates’’ Conference, 7 to 8 September 2001, Singapore, National Trades Union Congress.
National Trades Union Congress (2004) www.ntuc.org.sg/myunion/aboutus/listunion.html
National Wages Council Secretariat (1986) Report of the National Wages Council Subcommittee on Wage
Reform, Singapore, Ministry of Labour.
Oehlers, A. (1991) ‘The National Wages Council of Singapore: Issues for Consideration’, Journal of
Contemporary Asia, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 285-300.
Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Tan, C. H. (2004) Employment Relations in Singapore, Singapore, Prentice Hall.
Singapore National Employers’ Federation (1997) SNEF 21, Singapore, Singapore National
Employers’ Federation.
Singapore National Employers’ Federation (2001) Annula Report
Report, Singapore, Singapore National
Employers’ Federation.
Tan, C. H. (2004) Employment Relations in Singapore, Singapore, Prentice Hall.
The Straits Times (Weekdays) Singapore, Singapore Press Holdings.
356 AIRAANZ 2005